Hi all,
It seems Gulf Air are to scrap two of their A340’s. Both aircraft are only 15 years old so are relatively new, so I’m wondering why such aircraft end up getting scrapped when there are still plenty of 30 year old 747’s and various other types in the skies. I understand the general idea of hours and cycles, but surely there are aircraft with more cycles and flight hours than these two 340’s? Is it simply that they’re worth more sold as parts than as a complete aircraft?
Paul
By: flyPHanuk - 23rd December 2009 at 17:43
MSN 016 (the old 9Y-JIL/G-VSKY) is actually being parted out in Phoenix-Goodyear, I think this is the only one genuinely permanently withdrawn from use for spares so far, although a couple of the other five A340 write offs I recall may have produced some useable (albeit incident related) material.
I thought at least some the stored Cathay ones had been returned to the lessor ?
Philip
By: Homer09001 - 23rd December 2009 at 14:40
Someone was mentioning here the EK 345 was scraped?
If i am not wrong it was fixed and put back in the air?
Did they just un-rivet the damaged section and put a new one on 😮
that’s what it looks like lol.
By: Homer09001 - 23rd December 2009 at 14:39
It’s alleged that it’s the only airplane type that can suffer a birdstrike from behind:D Different story on the -500/600 though with those big Rollers.
Do explain lol, i really want to hear this one 😀
By: Skymonster - 23rd December 2009 at 08:00
I flew on a Cathay Pacific A343 a few years back. It was awful and is the only recent flight i have not enjoyed from a comfort perspective.
Well I’m sure Cathay will take into consideration of your views when they decide what to do with their A340 fleet in the future! :rolleyes:
Andy
By: Arabella-Cox - 23rd December 2009 at 02:07
I flew on a Cathay Pacific A343 a few years back. It was awful and is the only recent flight i have not enjoyed from a comfort perspective.
The B777 I used for another sector on that trip was infinitely superior.
By: KabirT - 22nd December 2009 at 19:30
Someone was mentioning here the EK 345 was scraped?
If i am not wrong it was fixed and put back in the air?
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd December 2009 at 18:58
Hello,
How’d I manage to post in this thread, the above was meant for the Emirates A340 thread.
Sorry.
No worries mate, you can delete and re-post.
By: eightandseven - 22nd December 2009 at 18:56
Hello,
How’d I manage to post in this thread, the above was meant for the Emirates A340 thread.
Sorry.
By: eightandseven - 22nd December 2009 at 18:48
Hello,
Even the best computers of the world are useless if the data they start with is error prone.
Crew fatigue is the problem, not the computer – they don’t get fatigued.
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd December 2009 at 18:06
The report says that the incident was due to an erroneous takeoff technique employed by the flying pilot (that they were taught by Emirates). Both the pilots and co-pilots had just started working on the 340 (I think it was only the 2nd flight on 340 for the pilot).
I don’t see the report on the CAA website. Where is it?
By: sekant - 22nd December 2009 at 13:47
No idea, the jolly CAA in South Africa have not yet released the investigation report. You can see all the finalized reports on http://www.caa.co.za
The one in 2004 was also Emirates.
Cheers
🙂
The report says that the incident was due to an erroneous takeoff technique employed by the flying pilot (that they were taught by Emirates). Both the pilots and co-pilots had just started working on the 340 (I think it was only the 2nd flight on 340 for the pilot).
By: Flightmech - 22nd December 2009 at 13:08
The A340-200/300 is renowned for poor performance. It’s alleged that it’s the only airplane type that can suffer a birdstrike from behind:D Different story on the -500/600 though with those big Rollers.
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd December 2009 at 12:35
Any idea what was the cause of that incident was? Similar to what happened with the Emirates?
Paul
No idea, the jolly CAA in South Africa have not yet released the investigation report. You can see all the finalized reports on http://www.caa.co.za
The one in 2004 was also Emirates.
Cheers
🙂
By: PMN - 22nd December 2009 at 12:11
No quad is as well endowed with power as are twins – simplistically, a twin jet needs to be able to continue takeoff after V1 on 50% of its engines (i.e. half of the available maximum power), whereas a quad only needs to be able to continue takeoff on 75% of its engines (three quarters of normal available maxiimum power). Thus a quad will always tend towards inferior performance versus an equivalent twin.
Yep I already understand that, but the generally slow climb of the 343 is still something I’ve heard mentioned quite a lot, and I’ve seen it a few times as well.
Paul
By: Skymonster - 22nd December 2009 at 12:05
I’ve never flown on any version of the A340 but the 343 is notorious for having a very sluggish climb rate. I’ve seen a good few lumbering out of LIS over the city and they never seem to be getting anywhere fast!
No quad is as well endowed with power as are twins – simplistically, a twin jet needs to be able to continue takeoff after V1 on 50% of its engines (i.e. half of the available maximum power), whereas a quad only needs to be able to continue takeoff on 75% of its engines (three quarters of normal available maxiimum power). Thus a quad will always tend towards inferior performance versus an equivalent twin.
Having said that, the A340 wing is also optimised towards efficient cruise rather than to climb performance, and the wing design whilst very good comes from an era where such compromises were sometimes necessary.
Any airline looking for a cheap and capable plane just now will find plenty in the desert.
Actually, that’s not true. There are very few A340s stored and even fewer have been parted out – three Cathay aircraft are at Victorville, but they are not disposed of yet and may go back to Cathay if the economy picks up. Virgin and Iberia have parked a few A343s and A346s, but these again are the result of the economy rather than the airline’s desire to get rid. And actually, recently Air Asia X have had problems acquiring additional “good” (i.e. ones that don’t need a major check) A343s for its long haul expansion.
There aren’t really any other “cheap and capable” planes in the desert that are in the same class as the A340 – hardly any used 777s or A330s are parked, and in general (and as long as an airline needs the full capabilities of an A340 class aircraft) 767s are smaller, less capable and less efficient than A340s.
Andy
By: PMN - 22nd December 2009 at 08:58
I’ve never flown on any version of the A340 but the 343 is notorious for having a very sluggish climb rate. I’ve seen a good few lumbering out of LIS over the city and they never seem to be getting anywhere fast!
Paul
By: MSR777 - 22nd December 2009 at 08:48
having taken off from Franfurt in a Lufthansa A340 i was amazed how slow the climb rate was, on our return the substituted a A300 for our short leg to Ringway, only half full it seemed to sore into the ski
I rode on a Lufthansa A300-600 LHR-FRA a few years ago, it was almost full and as you say it soared rapidly into the air. I guess that on that sector and despite being almost full the aircraft was well under max weight. The only other time that I experienced a steeper and sustained rate of climb was on an Interflug Tu134A out of LGW.
By: PMN - 22nd December 2009 at 08:41
Paul, in addition to the A340 that suffered a tailscrape in Australia, there is this near fatal incident in 2004 in which an A340 was damaged in a hair-raising takeoff at Johannesburg.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20040409-0
Maybe Gulf Air are learning from other airlines’ mistakes?
Any idea what was the cause of that incident was? Similar to what happened with the Emirates?
Paul
By: cockerhoop - 22nd December 2009 at 08:01
having taken off from Franfurt in a Lufthansa A340 i was amazed how slow the climb rate was, on our return the substituted a A300 for our short leg to Ringway, only half full it seemed to sore into the ski
By: Bmused55 - 22nd December 2009 at 07:27
Hi all,
It seems Gulf Air are to scrap two of their A340’s. Both aircraft are only 15 years old so are relatively new, so I’m wondering why such aircraft end up getting scrapped when there are still plenty of 30 year old 747’s and various other types in the skies. I understand the general idea of hours and cycles, but surely there are aircraft with more cycles and flight hours than these two 340’s? Is it simply that they’re worth more sold as parts than as a complete aircraft?
Paul
No one wants them. Any airline looking for a cheap and capable plane just now will find plenty in the desert.
The Gulf air A343s are likely more valuable in parts than whole.
Sign In
December 21, 2009 at 12:48 pm